Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
New Scientist reports findings on civilian deaths in Iraq
    #3289552 -

Civilian death toll in Iraq exceeds 100,000


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Scientist reports findings on civilian deaths in Iraq [Re: GazzBut]
    #3289561 -

GazzBut said:
Civilian death toll in Iraq exceeds 100,000


Shocking and Awful is what that is. Fuck you Bush. Right up the ass with a rusty shovel.  :frown: :mad2: :mad2: :frown:


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Scientist reports findings on civilian deaths in Iraq [Re: GazzBut]
    #3289608 -

And that's the conservative estimate!


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Scientist reports findings on civilian deaths in Iraq [Re: Xlea321]
    #3289612 -

Alex123 said:
And that's the conservative estimate!


Sadly, people who support bush still won't care. We really need that murdering cowboy psychopath out of office.


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Scientist reports findings on civilian deaths in Iraq [Re: unbeliever]
    #3290061 -

and how do you propose to accomplish that..without making dick cheney or dennis hastert POTUS??...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Scientist reports findings on civilian deaths in Iraq [Re: Annapurna1]
    #3290142 -

Hmm. So a group that was out and out against the war in Iraq multiplies the estimated number of civilian casualties by a factor of TEN and claims 95% of all casualties were women and children almost all attributed to the Coalition.

So US forces went around and randomly killed 95,000 women and children, and sparing only adult males? Not only this but the insurgency, poverty and crime have killed barely any civilians at all (13%), it was only Coalition Soldiers? That should set off red flags, the study attributes almost all of these deaths to US forces.

Not only does this contradict all previous figures far beyond any reasonable margin of error, but it is completely at odds with the rules of engagement and how US forces operate in combat situations. Going out of your way to wantonly kill as many women and children as possible, but somehow completely avoiding all males is completely unrealistic.

What the groups is reporting would be nothing short of genocide, and yet according most polls taken of Iraqis 39% believed invading was the right thing to do, and over 70% believe the future will be better with him gone. That does not add up with more than 100,000 people killed. Why would Iraqis prefer Saddam gone if the US was killing even more people? It does not add up.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html
http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/docLib/20030905_IraqpollFrequencies.pdf

The unscientific nature of the study combined with the extreme unrealistic findings, which are more than 10 times off the mark of previous estimates lead me to believe it is total horseshit. Certainly another well timed attack at Bush, we shall see if it falls apart as quickly as the CBS Memos and the New York Times weapons story.

I hope Bush wins next week.


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."

Edited by Divided_Sky (10/28/04 06:17 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Scientist reports findings on civilian deaths in Iraq [Re: GazzBut]
    #3290194 -

Interesting. My brother isn't very political, so I enjoy his rare observations. He once commented after 9-11 that the US would be getting revenge for the next few years, saying where terrorists killed 3,000 people, America would likely kill 100,000 Arabs and Muslims in revenge. Quite the prediction. What's sad is that the number will likely exceed 100,000. Frankly, this is the reason why I hate Bush - only second to his shoulder rubbing with the Saudis. No insurgency is an excuse for this - in fact, it will probably only snowball the insurgency.


--------------------

Edited by zahudulallah (10/28/04 06:11 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Scientist reports findings on civilian deaths in Iraq [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3290305 -

Whatever gets you through the night.





--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: Wild Things- Another Colored Ink Drawing (A.C.I.D.)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Scientist reports findings on civilian deaths in Iraq [Re: Learyfan]
    #3290310 -

Well, at least if it is true John Kerry can thank all of those dead Iraqis for his talking point for the next 3 days.


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Scientist reports findings on civilian deaths in Iraq [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3290331 -

Divided_Sky said:
Well, at least if it is true John Kerry can thank all of those dead Iraqis for his talking point for the next 3 days.


Like LF would even care. He's now backing Michael Badnarik, not John Kerry.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Scientist reports findings on civilian deaths in Iraq [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3290368 -

Hmm. So a group that was out and out against the war in Iraq multiplies the estimated number of civilian casualties by a factor of TEN and claims 95% of all casualties were women and children almost all attributed to the Coalition.

What group are you reffering to? Are you talking about the rearchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, or The Lancet, which is simply a scientific journal. Also how on earth did you get the 95% statistic. The paper linked by Gazz simply said a majority of the deaths were women and children, and many of these deaths could be attributed to air raids. No where does it say or even imply that soldiers are commiting genocide.

What the groups is reporting would be nothing short of genocide, and yet according most polls taken of Iraqis 39% believed invading was the right thing to do, and over 70% believe the future will be better with him gone. That does not add up with more than 100,000 people killed. Why would Iraqis prefer Saddam gone if the US was killing even more people? It does not add up.

Iraqis are hoping for a better life, they are hoping the United States will follow through on its word and rebuild Iraq. Perhaps at this point they are willing to accept certain losses in exchange for future freedom, perhaps they have little knowledge of how widespread the killing still is. Either way the results from the polls do not refute the results from this study, they are measuring two entirly different things.

The unscientific nature of the study combined with the extreme unrealistic findings, which are more than 10 times off the mark of previous estimates lead me to believe it is total horseshit.

Unscientific? Did you read their methods.
"The team of US and Iraqi scientists recorded mortality during the 15 months before the invasion and the 18 months afterwards. They carried out the survey of 988 Iraqi households in 33 different areas across Iraq in September 2004.

Using a GPS (global positioning system) unit, the interviewers randomly selected towns within governates. They then visited the nearest 30 houses to the GPS point randomly selected."


Maybe you should write a letter to Les Roberts at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore critqueing him on his scientific methodology. Tell us, exactly what is unscientific about it, and how could it be done differently to yeild more viable results. Unless you have access to the original journal article, (I looked on The Lancets website and was unable to find it) or a seperate death study with better methedology you need a whole lot more than speculation and disagreement to make your point.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Scientist reports findings on civilian deaths in Iraq [Re: DeepDish]
    #3290767 -

"airstrikes from coalition forces caused most of the violent deaths, the researchers wrote in the British-based journal."

"'Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children,' they said."

"However, after the invasion, violence was recorded as the primary cause of death and was mainly attributed to coalition forces ? with about 95 percent of those deaths caused by bombs or fire from helicopter gunships."


Here is something interesitng to note:

"Of the 988 households visited, 808, consisting of 7,868 people, agreed to participate."

"In an attempt at firmer confirmation, the interviewers asked for death certificates in 78 households and were provided them 63 times."

Out of 808 households, and almost 8,000 people they were only able to confirm 63 deaths.

"The scientists who wrote the report concede that the data they based their projections on were of "limited precision," because the quality of the information depends on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study. "


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Scientist reports findings on civilian deaths in Iraq [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3291814 -

i must say i was previously outraged to hear reports that 11000 civilians had died, that way to many. 100 000? holy shit. hes right though that is more than 10 times other estimates.

Bush is a murdering idiot


--------------------


Everything I post is fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Scientist reports findings on civilian deaths in Iraq [Re: GazzBut]
    #3291951 -

That estimate excludes Falluja, a hotspot for violence. If the data from this town is included, the study points to about 200,000 excess deaths since the outbreak of war.

100,000 deaths actually sounds like a rather conservative estimate.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Scientist reports findings on civilian deaths in Iraq [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3291974 -

Divided_Sky said:
"The scientists who wrote the report concede that the data they based their projections on were of "limited precision," because the quality of the information depends on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study. "


Okay, let's say there's a 20% margin of error. That would still be 80,000 (perhaps 120,000) deaths.

Let's say there's a 50% margin of error. 50,000 (or potentially 150,000) deaths.

To think that the limited precision of the study means that it has a margin of error of 90% and that it must be revised downward is pure bias on your part.

The previously reported figures of 10,000 deaths and up are based on a database of media-reported casualties and are just the tip of the iceberg.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Scientist reports findings on civilian deaths in Iraq [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3292126 -

Hmm.

Hmm indeed. You wern't as questioning of figures when you came up with that "Saddam has killed 20,000 people a year since 1991" horseshit were you.

I've a feeling you'll believe what you want to believe regardless.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Scientist reports findings on civilian deaths in Iraq [Re: Xlea321]
    #3292444 -

And you will believe that the US has killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein hasn't.


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Scientist reports findings on civilian deaths in Iraq [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3292448 -

Ha! You fell into my trap!!! How boringly predictable - as I said in the thread where you were making unsubstantiated claims about the number of people who Saddam has killed - You have a severe case of believingwhatyouwantitis.  :smirk:


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Scientist reports findings on civilian deaths in Iraq [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3292451 -

As for sampling methods consider this: If we used GPS locators to find sample groups equally across the land mass of the US to do a presidential poll Bush would win without question, and by a large margin. Do you really think that is accurate polling?


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New Scientist reports findings on civilian deaths in Iraq [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3292480 -

"An estimated 300,000 Iraqi citizens have vanished without a trace, many presumed dead.
In May 2003, a mass grave was discovered near Mahaweel, 60 miles south of Baghdad. Most bodies appear to have been killed after a 1991 Shiite revolt. The remains of other Shiites killed after a 1999 rebellion have been discovered near Basra."
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/12/15/Worldandnation/Atrocities_attributed.shtml

"The U.S. Agency for International Development reports that since Saddam was ousted, 270 sites of mass graves have been reported. These contain an unknown number of Iraqis, Iranian prisoners of war, Iraqi Kurds and Kuwaiti prisoners among the long list of those Saddam tortured and killed. British Prime Minister Tony Blair puts the remains in mass graves at 400,000 so far."
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040312-074010-1766r

"In March 1991, immediately following the Gulf war, the Iraqi regime turned its Republican Guard units against citizens who had risen in rebellion against the regime's oppression. Two million Kurds fled across the mountains into Turkey and Iran, as many children and elderly died of exposure and starvation. In the south, the regime's then defense minister boasted that the Republican Guard had killed 300,000 people. Conservative estimates place the number of dead at 30,000."

"From 1992-1995, the regime waged a military and environmental campaign against the ancient region of the southern marshes, draining the waters, burning villages, killing and arresting civilian inhabitants. As many as 300,000 marsh Arabs are believed to have been driven away from their homes. Many thousands were forced to flee to Iran, where they live in refugee camps. The regime continues to wage war on the inhabitants of the region surrounding the marshes: villages have been razed, inhabitants have been killed in shelling and men have been jailed."

"Since 1992, the Iraqi regime has conducted a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Kurds and Turkomans in the Karkuk province (Ta'mim). Several thousand families have been evicted from their homes, stripped of their identification cards (and their ration cards), lost their property and possessions, and told to leave the area."
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr.html

OK, now let's put the numbers together: 50,000-150,000 dead Kurds in the late 80s+ 250,000-300,000 killed in southern Iraq after Gulf War I, and 300,000 "disapeared". This is excluding the documented killing of thousands of political prisoners ("criminals") over the years, killing of Marsh Arabs, and 20,000 Iranians killed from chemical attacks.
So far there has already been 400,000 people found in the mass graves. 400,000 is the absolute low end. If the numbers do not overlap you are talking about up to 750,000 more dead people. The number is probobly alot lower. Many people have put a general estimate of Saddam's victims at about 1 million people. That seems reasonable.


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 10,000 civilians "liberated" Xlea321 616 1 06/13/03 10:26 AM
by Learyfan
* The secret war on Iraq Xlea321 724 1 12/28/02 05:25 AM
by Buddha5254
* War on Iraq IQ test
( 1 2 3 all )		 LearyfanS 4,377 41 03/15/03 07:19 PM
by rhizo
* Support US war on IRAQ
( 1 2 all )		 LordMorham 4,857 29 09/20/02 11:56 AM
by LordMorham
* Iraqi civilians feed hungry US marines Chills420 version2 907 5 03/31/03 04:28 AM
by RadioActiveSlug
* death squads in Vietnam
( 1 2 all )		 headphone 3,175 22 08/12/01 08:59 AM
by Beery
* "poor Iraq"
( 1 2 3 all )		 TrOmAn 2,450 42 09/10/02 06:29 PM
by Larrythescaryrex
* China Threatens Death in SARS Battle I_Fart_Blue 757 5 05/17/03 04:18 PM
by nugsarenice

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,117 topic views. 2 members, 32 guests and 21 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 18 queries.